NJ: Lifting shirt instead of conducting a patdown was unreasonable

Defendant’s patdown was too intense and involved lifting his shirt to expose drugs in his waistband. The officer had reason for a patdown, but didn’t pat him down. Instead, he lifted his shirt. State v. Privott, 203 N.J. 16, 999 A.2d 415 (2010) (applying Fourth Amendment and N.J. Const.).

“Finally, although the petitioner complains that counsel performed deficiently by failing to file a motion to suppress, the record establishes that any suppression motion would have been unsuccessful given the petitioner’s pretrial admission that he had granted the officers consent to search his residence and the officers’ corroborating testimony that consent was given. Furthermore, counsel testified that, pursuant to the policy of the district attorney’s office, the filing of a motion to suppress would have caused the state to revoke the plea offer, which included Mrs. Raney’s probationary sentence. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to establish that his counsel performed deficiently by failing to file a motion to suppress.” Raney v. State, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 536 (June 23, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.